Because you're trying to act like you could have made a better choice as to who could pla ythe 2.

I asked you a simple question on who could stretch the floor better and play better defense than Blake at the 2 off our bench that year.

You couldn't give me a straight answer.

So either you just don't want to admit that Blake was our only real choice for both sides of the floor or you were just talking out of your rear.

Either way, you didn't have an answer for your complaint. Which means you were complaining to complain.

Though we disagree at least L.A.K.E.R brings an argument.

If you would read my post. God damn.

I said we should put in Ebanks because Ebanks was putting up better stats on the offensive end. And Ebanks wouldn't be getting raped on the other end like Blake.Blake- 23 mpg 5.2ppg on .377%Ebanks- 16.5 mpg 4 ppg on .416%

Theres your damn argument

Oh and if there was an official ride Mike Brown thread I would post it for you....

I said we should put in Ebanks because Ebanks was putting up better stats on the offensive end. And Ebanks wouldn't be getting raped on the other end like Blake.Blake- 23 mpg 5.2ppg on .377%Ebanks- 16.5 mpg 4 ppg on .416%

Theres your damn argument

And yet you still haven't proven that Ebanks was able to do it on both sides of the court more.

Ebanks had NO three point shot whatsoever last year and couldn't stretch the floor, offensively he struggled when he got playing time and rushed his shots more often than not.

I said "stretch" the floor and play defense.

Know what Ebanks shot from 3 last year? 0%

You still have given me nothing.

Blake got many more shots, in many more games on many more opportunities and stretched the floor better than Ebanks and seemed more 'game ready' than Ebanks. Argue it all you want but it's the reason people are skeptical about Ebanks right now(and I'm one of the people actually supporting him)

But I'm not gonna sit here and act like he was ready to be our backup 2 last year, he very clearly and obviously wasn't.

Edited by Majesty, October 25, 2012 - 11:25 PM.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."

Blake plays the pick and roll better than Goudelock, is better at perimeter passing than him, and plays better defense than him, and is also better at setting people up than him. We could talk all day about how terrible Blake is at it compared to the likes of Steve Nash or other guards on the Lakers team but we're SPECIFICALLY talking about last year.

Blake doesn't play the pick-and-roll at all, so that point is moot. Playing the P&R means creating looks for himself, the roll man, and collapsing the defense for drive-and-kick opportunities. Blake does none of that, ever. Perimeter passing? It really must be difficult to pass along the perimeter to an open man. Let's applaud Steve Blake for this skill that every pointguard in the entire league possesses.

The point of bringing up Steve Nash was to highlight how bad of a player Blake is in basic terms of pointguard skill. Penetrating the paint is a basic guard skill which Blake is incapable of. Even Goudelock, who isn't quick at all, could find the creases in the defense to get in range to put up a short floater. Blake almost never drives into the paint, preferring instead to pick up his dribble right around the 15-17 foot area at the most inopportune moment then pass it out in a panic.

The ONLY thing Goudelock had over Blake last was was his ability to hit wide open shots, that's it. And unfortunately they needed him for more than that, they needed him to be able to find guys when he drew attention, he didn't. They needed him to play defense on opposing 2s, he couldn't. They needed for him to be able to know what the heck to do when he was double teamed off a screen, he didn't, and if you've seen the pre-season, he still doesn't.

We played the 4-out-1-in last season. Goudelock is a shooter and the one player off our bench last season that would actually attack the paint from time to time. We were in desperate need of any offense we could generate off of the bench, and Mike Brown decided to keep him in the doghouse instead. Drawing attention? He's a backup rookie 2 guard, how much defensive pressure were you expecting teams to force on him? He's not Kobe Bryant. His role would have simply been to come in for 10-12 minutes a night, put up a few points, and most importantly spot a few quality minutes of rest for Kobe Bryant.

Goudelock was a rookie last season, he would have learned with more games under his belt (just like how Bynum got slightly better at dealing with double teams as the year went on) and could have been a contributor for us in the 2nd half of the season. Instead, he was put into Brown's doghouse right after the return of Blake who for some reason commanded all the minutes at the backup 1 and 2 slots despite being terrible at both positions.

Defense? Again? Stop bringing it up. Blake does NOT play good defense at either the 1 or 2 position. Just watching the games themselves should make this plenty obvious. He and Goudelock are a wash in that department, neither is a good defender.

Blake doesn't have the footspeed to keep up with more athletic players at either position (nearly every guard in the league). He consistently gets picked off on screens in P&R sets. He would get burned off the dribble by seemingly every guard he was matched up with defensively. Just yesterday there was a play where Travis Leslie, the Clippers' 5th string guard, looked away from Blake for a second then blew right by him at the top of key. Not one or two steps, but a whole foot plus of separation. That is how terrible Steve Blake is defensively. I don't care about some stupid intangible like "feistiness" that beat writers like to throw out (especially when it comes to Blake) when it doesn't do anything to stop the opposition from getting whatever they want whenever they want.

Blake had more aspects to his game than Goudelock had and that's why he, metta world peace and matt barns both got more burn at that position than he did. When you break it down, the only advantage Goudelock had over Blake was shooting the three wide open. But he has shown time and time again that if he;s pressured defensively or double teamed he struggles with the rest of them.

You don't see the irony of this when making a case for Steve Blake as a superior option at the backup 2?

Struggling under pressure? That is literally what happens to Blake every game. He can't even bring the ball up the court half the time when the defensive puts pressure on him. He almost always passes off to a man while crossing the half-court line because he has so much trouble getting past his man. Goudelock is a 2 guard, a prototypical 2 guard, and Blake is not. It was a no-brainer to give Goudelock minutes at the 2 guard position last year, especially when Blake gave us minimal production all year long.

This is why Goudelock was out there as more of a 1 rather than a 2 during Blake's time out because he could operate from the top of the key or hit wide open shots. But when he's moved to the 2 he struggles because he can NOT put the ball down or play off or on a PnR situation, it was a weakness in his game last year and as even real deal will tell you, his shooting is better suited coming off the dribble than being a spot up guy.

That's pretty hard to do when you can't put the ball down against an NBA type defense and he barely got a chance to do it last year.

Simply put, he wasn't good enough to play the 2 over blake because what he DIDN'T offer, outweighed what he did. Simple as that.

It's funny when you highlight these weaknesses for Goudelock when they are the same exact things that Steve Blake has proven incapable of doing at either the backup 1 or 2 position. He can't penetrate the paint, bricks the majority of his wide open looks, can't play the pick and roll, and he can barely put the ball down on the floor against an NBA type defense. So, how exactly is he better at the 2 guard?

Yeah, a rookie player definitely can't learn to adjust his game over the course of a season, right? He could shoot the three ball as well as anyone on our team last year. He played SG throughout his entire basketball career. We had Kobe Bryant clocking in at 38.5 mpg last season. Think we could have used a guy actually capable of spotting some minutes at the backup 2 and giving us some points? Really wish we had one available on the bench because that's definitely NOT what Blake did for us.

And yet you still haven't proven that Ebanks was able to do it on both sides of the court more.

Ebanks had NO three point shot whatsoever last year and couldn't stretch the floor, offensively he struggled when he got playing time and rushed his shots more often than not.

I said "stretch" the floor and play defense.

Know what Ebanks shot from 3 last year? 0%

You still have given me nothing.

Blake got many more shots, in many more games on many more opportunities and stretched the floor better than Ebanks and seemed more 'game ready' than Ebanks. Argue it all you want but it's the reason people are skeptical about Ebanks right now(and I'm one of the people actually supporting him)

But I'm not gonna sit here and act like he was ready to be our backup 2 last year, he very clearly and obviously wasn't.

From the stats above.......Ebanks pretty much had a better offensive game than Blake....its right up there. And anybody who watched the games knows that Ebanks could guard 2s much better than Blake.

So why would you not play a player that puts up better offensive numbers and plays better defense.

Blake doesn't play the pick-and-roll at all, so that point is moot. Playing the P&R means creating looks for himself, the roll man, and collapsing the defense for drive-and-kick opportunities. Blake does none of that, ever. Perimeter passing? It really must be difficult to pass along the perimeter to an open man. Let's applaud Steve Blake for this skill that every pointguard in the entire league possesses.

yep, unfortunately Goudelock couldn't even do that.

The point of bringing up Steve Nash was to highlight how bad of a player Blake is in basic terms of pointguard skill. Penetrating the paint is a basic guard skill which Blake is incapable of. Even Goudelock, who isn't quick at all, could find the creases in the defense to get in range to put up a short floater. Blake almost never drives into the paint, preferring instead to pick up his dribble right around the 15-17 foot area at the most inopportune moment then pass it out in a panic.

Blake is a pass first kind of player, he has been since his portland days, it's in his playstyle to drive the lane and pass it to a wide open 2(see Shannon Brown) that was his job. Goudelock got to the rim for a floater, but if a guy played him man to man defense he rarely was able to truly get that floater off and he seems to have regressed a bit in that aspect. He turned the ball over more trying to put the ball on the ground than he had success with the floater. Like I said, when you made him put the ball on the ground he struggled. Goudelock found creases sometimes but more often than not, making him put the ball down resulted in a turnover.

We played the 4-out-1-in last season. Goudelock is a shooter and the one player off our bench last season that would actually attack the paint from time to time. We were in desperate need of any offense we could generate off of the bench, and Mike Brown decided to keep him in the doghouse instead. Drawing attention? He's a backup rookie 2 guard, how much defensive pressure were you expecting teams to force on him? He's not Kobe Bryant. His role would have simply been to come in for 10-12 minutes a night, put up a few points, and most importantly spot a few quality minutes of rest for Kobe Bryant.

yeah but here's the thing, when teams double teamed him, he struggled. When he tried to play off the pick and roll of someone else(to set up the shot for himself) he struggled. When he was asked to DISH or set people up when he drew defensive attention the "one or two" times he drove to the paint you mentioned, he struggled and it resulted in a forced shot. Not to mention on top of it all he couldn't play a lick of defense against any other backup 2. Blake being the better defender and having more aspects to his game are why he got the nod over Goudelock.

Goudelock was a rookie last season, he would have learned with more games under his belt (just like how Bynum got slightly better at dealing with double teams as the year went on) and could have been a contributor for us in the 2nd half of the season. Instead, he was put into Brown's doghouse right after the return of Blake who for some reason commanded all the minutes at the backup 1 and 2 slots despite being terrible at both positions.

Like I said, Goudelock's inability to dribble, pass or play defense are the reason he was sat over Blake. Unless you are gonna make an argument that Goudelock was a better defender, passer and defender than Goudelock.

Defense? Again? Stop bringing it up. Blake does NOT play good defense at either the 1 or 2 position. Just watching the games themselves should make this plenty obvious. He and Goudelock are a wash in that department, neither is a good defender.

I'm not gonna stop bringing it up because the fact of the matter is, Blake is a better defender than Goudelock. Point blank. You can try to ignore it all you want to but that is a large reason why he got minutes over Goudelock. Aside from him being a better passer and dribbler than Goudelock as well.

Blake doesn't have the footspeed to keep up with more athletic players at either position (nearly every guard in the league). He consistently gets picked off on screens in P&R sets. He would get burned off the dribble by seemingly every guard he was matched up with defensively. Just yesterday there was a play where Travis Leslie, the Clippers' 5th string guard, looked away from Blake for a second then blew right by him at the top of key. Not one or two steps, but a whole foot plus of separation. That is how terrible Steve Blake is defensively. I don't care about some stupid intangible like "feistiness" that beat writers like to throw out (especially when it comes to Blake) when it doesn't do anything to stop the opposition from getting whatever they want whenever they want.

And yet and still Goudelock is a worse defender. Which is my point pretty much. No matter how bad you say Blake is at defender, Goudelock was worse.

You don't see the irony of this when making a case for Steve Blake as a superior option at the backup 2?

Struggling under pressure? That is literally what happens to Blake every game. He can't even bring the ball up the court half the time when the defensive puts pressure on him. He almost always passes off to a man while crossing the half-court line because he has so much trouble getting past his man. Goudelock is a 2 guard, a prototypical 2 guard, and Blake is not. It was a no-brainer to give Goudelock minutes at the 2 guard position last year, especially when Blake gave us minimal production all year long.

Like I said, the main reason why Blake got minutes over Goudelock at the 2 was this.

better defenderbetter passerbetter dribbler

Those three things are why he got credence over Goudelock and unless you're going to make a case for Goudelock being better than Blake in those areas the point is moot.

It's funny when you highlight these weaknesses for Goudelock when they are the same exact things that Steve Blake has proven incapable of doing at either the backup 1 or 2 position. He can't penetrate the paint, bricks the majority of his wide open looks, can't play the pick and roll, and he can barely put the ball down on the floor against an NBA type defense. So, how exactly is he better at the 2 guard?

because he despite not being "great" at those things, he's better at them than Goudelock is simply put. You still don't see that?

Yeah, a rookie player definitely can't learn to adjust his game over the course of a season, right? He could shoot the three ball as well as anyone on our team last year. He played SG throughout his entire basketball career. We had Kobe Bryant clocking in at 38.5 mpg last season. Think we could have used a guy actually capable of spotting some minutes at the backup 2 and giving us some points? Really wish we had one available on the bench because that's definitely NOT what Blake did for us.

Case in point like I said and my point of entirety being.

Despite being a better "offensive" player than Blake.

He was not a better defender, nor a better passer, nor a better dribbler. And unless you can make a case that Goudelock was, he wasn't gonna get the backup 2 spot time over the likes of Blake, or Metta, or Barnes and that's all there is to it.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."

Blake is a pass first kind of player, he has been since his portland days, it's in his playstyle to drive the lane and pass it to a wide open 2(see Shannon Brown) that was his job. Goudelock got to the rim for a floater, but if a guy played him man to man defense he rarely was able to truly get that floater off and he seems to have regressed a bit in that aspect. He turned the ball over more trying to put the ball on the ground than he had success with the floater. Like I said, when you made him put the ball on the ground he struggled. Goudelock found creases sometimes but more often than not, making him put the ball down resulted in a turnover.

Blake has been a pass always kind of player in his time here. I can't recall the last time I saw a player so tentative when it came to shooting or being aggressive on the offensive end. Blake does NOT drive the lane, collapse the defense, or find open shooters. He doesn't do this at all.

Goudleock turned the ball over that often? Funny, I'm looking through his boxscores through that stretch he was playing big minutes and contributing to the team and I see an average of 0.8 turnovers per game. One turnover per game doesn't hurt us in the least if the guy is scoring 8 ppg for us and actually contributing offensively.

yeah but here's the thing, when teams double teamed him, he struggled. When he tried to play off the pick and roll of someone else(to set up the shot for himself) he struggled. When he was asked to DISH or set people up when he drew defensive attention the "one or two" times he drove to the paint you mentioned, he struggled and it resulted in a forced shot. Not to mention on top of it all he couldn't play a lick of defense against any other backup 2. Blake being the better defender and having more aspects to his game are why he got the nod over Goudelock.

You could count the number of times Andrew Goudelock was double-teamed last season on a single hand. It did not happen often enough to qualify as a weakness for us on the offensive end during his time on the floor. Forced shooting? If Goudelock averaging nearly 49% from the field is from forced shooting, I wonder what Blake's season average of shooting 38% falls under. He certainly wasn't forcing anything, just bricking everything in sight.

Again, stop mentioning defense because they were equally as bad. Saying that Goudelock played no defense does nothing in the argument for Blake because he was just as terrible on that end. There is no nod defensively towards Blake, he does NOTHING of note defensively at either guard position.

Like I said, Goudelock's inability to dribble, pass or play defense are the reason he was sat over Blake. Unless you are gonna make an argument that Goudelock was a better defender, passer and defender than Goudelock.

That hurt us so much more than Blake's inability to shoot, play defense, drive the lane, facilitate for others or establish any legitimate presence for much of the year, right?

I'm not gonna stop bringing it up because the fact of the matter is, Blake is a better defender than Goudelock. Point blank. You can try to ignore it all you want to but that is a large reason why he got minutes over Goudelock. Aside from him being a better passer and dribbler than Goudelock as well.

So we're just going to roll with the myth that Steve Blake was somehow a halfway decent defender at the 2 guard? Despite the fact that he was consistently burned on that end all year long, couldn't stay in front of anyone, and he was routinely picked off on high picks? We should just ignore that completely because by some unseen metric, he's a better defender than Goudelock. They are both terrible defenders, there is no nod towards Blake. There are zero facts to back up this absurd claim and I'm pretty sure you are the only person on these entire boards who thinks Blake actually played good defense at the 2 guard position.

And yet and still Goudelock is a worse defender. Which is my point pretty much. No matter how bad you say Blake is at defender, Goudelock was worse.

Bring actual facts instead of asserting this claim time and time again with no basis whatsoever. You have no numbers and no explanations while I can point to countless possessions from last season where Blake played terrible defense. Hell, I can point to Wednesday's game against the Clippers as all the proof I need of Blake's defensive abilities.

Case in point like I said and my point of entirety being.

Despite being a better "offensive" player than Blake.

He was not a better defender, nor a better passer, nor a better dribbler. And unless you can make a case that Goudelock was, he wasn't gonna get the backup 2 spot time over the likes of Blake, or Metta, or Barnes and that's all there is to it.

You haven't made any legitimate points whatsoever in regards to Goudelock vs. Steve Blake at the backup 2 position last year. Steve Blake put up horrid shooting numbers all year long and was a ghost on that end most nights. Obviously, he's not a better offensive player.

Defensively? You haven't provided me with anything yet except this claim that Blake is somehow a better defender at the 2 guard with no evidence despite dozens upon dozens of possessions last year where Blake was completely useless on that end.

Better passer? Sure, I'm not going to deny that, but it doesn't make much of a difference when the only "creating" Blake does is passing along the perimeter due to have zero ability in breaking down opposing defenses. I'd expect a 10 year veteran PG to be a better passer than a rookie SG from the 2nd round. I'd also expect him to contribute more when given the minutes, but you can't have everything I guess.

Dribbler? That's actually a criteria between judging the two? Newsflash: neither is particularly good at handling the ball. Steve Blake isn't some super composed guard directing the offense ala Steve Nash. He doesn't keep his dribble alive throughout a possession, nor does he doing anything special while handling the ball. He doesn't penetrate the paint, dribbles along the perimeter, and he often has trouble bringing the ball up the court if a man is putting pressure upon him. How exactly is he so superior that this is a point of emphasis in his advantage over Goudelock at backup 2 guard?

It made perfect sense to not give minutes to the guy that has actually played SG throughout his career. The same guy who put up better numbers on much greater efficiency and actually provided a scoring punch when given the minutes. That 7 game stretch by Goudelock had higher efficiency and better offensive output than any similar stretch from Blake for the entirety of last season. Mike Brown, gotta love what goes on in the mind of an offensive genius.

The only thing Blake does well is hand the ball the ball off safely to our players and runs to the right spots on the floor. He doesn't shoot well, he doesn't shoot when hes semi open or open, he doesn't create for himself or others. Hes just a low mistake player who is a detriment to the team because hes playing big minutes and not contributing. I wont blame him too much for his defense but offensively hes supposed to be the floor general and hes not a threat whatsoever

Can we wait 1 full game is over before we start panicking lol I agree Coach Brown hasn't been sensational but we dont have an alternative though. We're stuck with him. We basically replaced all his assistants and we're playing Rick Adelman's offense (whom Mike was picked over). Go figure. That is a management faulty decision. Mike is limited in offense everyone knew that hes trying I can at least give him some credit for that